Bill: Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025

BILL:

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL 2025’.

Wednesday, 4 February 2026

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:27):

I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025.

At the outset I say the Coalition will not be opposing the Bill both in terms of the original substance of the Bill – and I will speak to the original substance of the Bill in some detail throughout the contribution – but also in relation to the Amendments that the Government has just circulated in relation to the consent of public prosecutions provision, which has just been inserted into the Bill after some debate around the scope of that provision. I would like to put on record from the outset that both in relation to the original substance of the Bill and the Amendment which I have been handed – which, to be fair, the Attorney-General’s office did circulate to me prior to the commencement of debate – the Coalition does not oppose either the original Bill or the Amendments. I would like that noted; and in no way will we be frustrating the Bill.

I might start by speaking to the original substance of the Bill and then speak in some detail around the Amendments that have just been brought in by the Government. The Bill itself is what we like to call an omnibus bill, which deals with a number of matters, some of which some may look at and not immediately understand the importance of, but they are important things. They are important reforms. Sometimes the little things make big differences to people and make big differences to the way our state operates, and that is certainly the case with a number of Amendments in this Bill.

Firstly, this Bill implements recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Contempt of Court report, which provides clarity in relation to legacy suppression orders. There has been some debate around suppression orders more generally in recent times and the use of suppression orders. So I would say in principle – not just in relation to the specifics of legacy suppression orders, which are dealt with in this Bill – it is important for, I think, the use of suppression orders and the ease with which suppression orders can be varied where it is appropriate for them to be, for want of a better term, modernised.

Part of the reform that we are considering today in this Bill in relation to suppression orders is, I would argue, to ensure clarity so that courts can deal with suppression orders and make decisions around suppression orders across courts. But I think it would also be fair to say it would modernise the process of suppression orders. I think more will need to be said around suppression orders more generally, because there is no question that suppression orders are being overused and they are being used primarily in cases where an alleged crime has been committed, often of a sexual nature, against a woman.

There is no doubt that in some of the early rough figures that you can look at on suppression orders it would probably be fair to say in the vicinity of four out of five instances in the listings I have seen on suppression orders are of that kind. There is no question that they are being used by a particular alleged offender. I think that the community more broadly would be very concerned if suppression orders were being used by alleged offenders in those circumstances, because these are very serious matters.

As we have seen in high profile cases recently, I think the community has an expectation that, if you are charged with an offence, the legal system should not provide an opportunity for you to, frankly, hide your name. There will be circumstances where it is needed – of course there are; genuine circumstances – and in no way would I argue against that fact. However, I think it would also be fair to say if you were alleged to have offended, you may well try and use that mechanism to hide your name from public attention. I am not specifically referring to any person, but you may use a mechanism that enables you to effectively hide your name where there is no good reason to. Had you committed any other offence, you probably would not have done so. I think we need to balance up this policy matter, and I think that this policy matter has come to the fore because of recent issues that have received public attention. I note that these particular measures in the Bill are important in terms of modernising suppression orders. They just start in relation to legacy matters, which are effectively longstanding suppression orders, and the capacity of courts to deal with those matters and make variations of those matters. I think beyond this we need to have a broader conversation about policy more broadly. That is the Amendment in relation to that.

There are a number of Amendments in the Bill that relate to the Coroners Court and investigations, where they are effectively non-controversial matters, in terms of streamlining those processes and ensuring that registered deaths and reporting obligations around them can be simplified. I think many members in this place may have unfortunately dealt with a circumstance where a family has gone through a difficult reporting of a death in a non-controversial manner in their family. That is no reflection, of course, on the registration of that other than to understand that modernising and streamlining, through this Bill, those processes to enable reporting to occur more quickly in a very difficult time for a family, as family of a loved one, can only be a good thing.

That is what this Bill does in relation to that. It does modernise, to use the term again, that reporting process and enables reporting to be done by other expert people – that is probably the simplest way to say it – to ensure that reporting can be streamlined where there is not a substantive concern in relation to that passing.

Further, there are a number of other modernisations in relation to fine-related matters. For example, it clarifies the serving of fines in a number of ways, moving us into the electronic age. We are moving into the electronic age in relation to some of the measures of this Bill. It might have taken us a couple of decades, but we are getting there. So, there will be clarity of service in relation to electronic means, and an Amendment in this Bill makes clear that an electronic service is equivalent to a non-electronic service, which, again, I think most people would probably presume is already the case, frankly. But I think it is an important amendment and a reasonable Amendment and not a controversial Amendment whereby, as I said, most people I think would expect it to be that way. I think that most Victorians would probably presume that is the case. It is not the case. That is what the amendments in this Bill do. I will not go into all of the various modernisations in relation to those matters because they relate to a number of other small things that are probably less worth noting other than my broader comments.

I do want to talk about the simplification of the extension-of-time rule for people who receive fines. I think, again, as a Member – and I am sure many Members in this place will have found this – there have been very genuine times where someone needed an extension of time where they received a fine that was not warranted for them because of the circumstances, but the process by which the government or the department was able to provide an extension of time was quite cumbersome. I know only recently I was dealing with a matter that was selfevident, and as soon as it was raised with the relevant minister, the department immediately ensured that the matter was resolved. However, there are some difficulties in the cumbersome nature of the requirement of that extension being granted. So, one of the things that this Bill does is make sure that application process is cleaner, which is a good thing.

Those are probably some of the more substantive matters in general terms in the bill. I would like to also talk a little bit about some of the feedback on those things that have been received. I will start with talking about the Law Institute of Victoria’s feedback. The Law Institute are frankly incredible at looking at forthcoming legislation and providing a lens. The institute is made up of an extremely broad spectrum – in fact the entire spectrum – of the legal fraternity, so it looks at upcoming legislation with a very broad scope and is always able to in an extremely timely, in fact probably an unfair, timeframe. This Bill of course we have had several months to look at, but in some circumstances the Institute will look at a Bill overnight. I know the team there often watch Parliament, believe it or not. I do not know if that is a work benefit or otherwise – an unfortunate side of being in the office. But they will often overnight have a look at a piece of proposed legislation and provide feedback, so I thank them for that.

I think it would be fair to say in relation to the Bill they do consider, though, it is an omnibus Bill. It does go beyond simply the minor Amendment, and there are a number of matters that I spoke to where the Institute has argued that they are more substantive policy changes rather than minor ones, and they have noted that – not in a negative way per se, but they do feel that the omnibus Bill goes beyond that. In general terms, like the Coalition, they are not in opposition to the omnibus Bill, but they do note that. They have made a couple of comments in relation to specific things – the suppression order matter that I spoke about earlier. They agree in terms of the Amendment that:

The status quo necessarily strains Supreme Court resources and impedes access to justice.

I think with that phraseology – and it is one that I did not use when I was speaking to the issue earlier; I did not use that specific phrase, though I did talk about suppression orders and fairness – access to justice is important. I think oftentimes legal processes are put in place whereby there will be victims who feel that their access to justice, for want of a better phrase, is constrained, and I think suppression orders are an example of that. So, they have noted their support of the measures, as I did earlier. They did talk about the importance, considering there will be some practical things that play out as these reforms are implemented, that probably cannot be foreseen on a day-to-day basis through the courts. So, the Institute:

… recommends that the judiciary is consulted to confirm whether existing court and tribunal practice notes and forms provide sufficient direction and requirement to notify affected parties to an application of a suppression order review.

So I think it is worth noting that from a practical perspective, though, that they support the amendment and that there are some practical things which I would hope the government takes on board in terms of application, because sometimes you can do a good thing and you would not want to see that good thing constrained in terms of how it gets brought into force, as it were, with the institute, who are on the ground, noting that, and their advice I think is meritorious.

The Institute have raised, in relation to fines reform, a particular concern around the false information fine. Politely, though, I think it is worth noting that that is their concern and understanding that their concern stems from the fact that false information is sometimes given by people who are disadvantaged. The institute has, to precis them, framed it in that way. I completely understand where that concern comes from. I think when I take the reforms in this Bill on balance, I do not see the same level of concern by what is proposed in the Bill, but I do think it is important to note their concern. I think that they have provided it in good faith, and so I think that is worth noting.

May I also note feedback from the Community Advocacy Alliance. They have specifically raised concern with the Coroners Court amendments and the streamlining of those processes and are just wanting to make sure about some details in relation to those processes and the Chief Commissioner of Police. To quote them:

This gives the same power to an interested party as the Chief Commissioner of Police, which basically makes the new power a moot point. Our comment is that it is just window dressing and not a substantial new improvement in power and unlikely to bring justice to offended parties.

I note that.

In relation to the Drug Court, which I did not speak to in detail, which was my overlooking the bill also – I should have; that was a mistake on my part – the Bill also extends what was a trial of the Drug Court effectively into an ongoing matter. Otherwise, the Drug Court effectively would have been discontinued by the middle of the year, from memory. So that is a notable Amendment that is being made in the Bill. The Community Advocacy Alliance’s view in relation to part of that Amendment is:

The Amendments progress the Drug Court division of the County Court by transitioning from the pilot phase to an ongoing phase. This is largely procedural and might be better dealt with politically.

Or dealt with in a different manner.

There are questions of course with that continuance around funding and ongoing funding and those questions, and I do not say that in a political way. Those questions, I think, are fair and reasonable to talk about in terms of ongoing funding and clarity around funding into the future. I think I have fairly covered most of the Bill in relation to what was originally the case. As I said earlier, on the original matters in the Bill the Coalition at no time saw it as anything other than an omnibus Bill.

I will now move to the Amendments that the Attorney has just circulated – just for background. I would like my contribution not to be taken initially as making any partisan points, but rather, I suppose, it is to catch up on how we got to here on these matters. Obviously, we have some Amendments that have been moved as part of this Bill which are effectively the Government, however you want to phrase this, admitting the need to change the hate speech laws that were introduced a year ago. They included a measure on incitement whereby to ensure, as the Government has openly said, the Bills passed the Parliament a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) tick-off was given in those matters. So rather than the police simply being able to charge and the matter proceeding, there was a hurdle whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions had to tick that off. What has unfortunately been the case – and I spoke across the table to the Attorney during the debate earlier – is that there have been no instances of finding of guilt on any matter of incitement that I am aware of, and the Attorney did not correct me. There have been no instances of incitement, no findings of guilt, under these new laws – none.

I think it would be very fair to say that the Government has recognised that the DPP tick-off is clearly part of the reason why. You would never say it is solely the reason why, because there are of course other matters in consideration on the capacity to charge. I mean, we can take a lot of things – people wearing face masks and whether or not people are able to have their face masks removed so that they can actually be identified to be charged. All of these things of course play in. I do not want to simply blame this on one thing. However, there is no doubt that the administrative delay and the evidence-burden requirement the Director of Public Prosecutions tick-off are causing – and substantially causing – a lack of instances of incitement moving to an outcome that I think the community would expect.

I said this in an earlier debate. I look only at yesterday and the incredible motion that was moved in this place, and the speakers from both sides of the Chamber – certainly not all sides of the Chamber; there was a notable exception – who spoke to that motion spoke with emotion and spoke either as Jews or as strong friends of the Jewish community. But towards the end of that motion, we had people on the steps of our own Parliament committing acts of incitement. It actually just breaks your heart to know that while we were trying to do frankly what is best about our Parliament – and it was an opportunity for us to do that – on the steps of the Parliament incitement was occurring, not in one instance but in many instances right across the steps. I have unfortunately received many photographs, because I was in the Chamber, of what occurred on the steps and the graffiti that was strewn across the great steps of this great place. Incitement is occurring every day. Incitement and, frankly, hate against parts of our community are happening every single day.

I should refer to the Member for Werribee, who made a contribution earlier where he spoke about acts of disgraceful incitement that occurred in his community over summer. Unfortunately, we have seen a massive increase in the most outrageous and horrible behaviour by the ultra, ultra minority of the community. Good Australians do not behave like this. There is unfortunately an ultra, ultra minority of people who are behaving in the most outrageous way and saying the most disgusting things. But rather than doing it quietly where they perhaps in the past may have silently done it, they are now doing it in the streets. They are now doing it by writing on our parliamentary building. They are doing it in an emboldened way, and I can understand why the Government has sought to move legislation to deal with that – of course. I think that all good parties have said we need to do more, we need to be tougher and we need to make sure that crimes exist. I know the Member for Caulfield and I have been advocating – he for longer than I, but certainly we advocated very, very strongly under the former Premier for the Nazi flag, the Nazi salute and the Nazi symbols to be dealt with by law. We called for that, and through a Parliamentary committee process that eventually led to that being the case. But the Member for Caulfield and I, to be fair, publicly called for that before the committee had proposed it and before the Government had accepted those findings. These are what all the good people in this place have been calling for.

But when it comes to these Amendments, I would say that it is absolutely essential we do everything that we can to make sure that where people commit a crime they are held to account, and there is a general feeling in the community that that is not the case enough in this State. It would be fair also to say that this amendment is an acceptance by the Government that the system that was originally put into the Bill did not work and does not work, and therefore the Government is amending it. I am trying to be as non-political as possible in saying that the Government have made an admission that the system that they put in place did not work. The Government would say, and I accept what they are saying, that they had to compromise to pass a Bill. Okay, so we are here today to try and correct that mistake, which we support. We will not frustrate that in any way; we support that. There was a conversation earlier about whether 17-yearolds should be allowed to incite or be given an additional loophole whereby if they are under the age of 18 they stay under the current system, which does not work. I think it is fair to note that our position was that if you are 17, for example, and you commit an act of incitement, you should not be dealt with differently than an 18-year-old who commits an act of incitement, especially under a system that has been proven not to work and that the Government is amending with the admission that it is not working.

We know that if you are under 18 it is very unlikely, because there has been no instance of someone being found guilty of incitement under these laws. These Amendments perhaps address concerns raised by us in relation to that loophole for people under 18. But these Amendments are certainly welcome. When the deal was done with the Greens to pass the Bill, we in this place, the former Shadow Attorney the Member for Malvern and I spoke on those Amendments. We were quite strong in our concerns about this particular matter and said that it would not work. We said that frankly it was a deal, and I think the Government has accepted that and that we would need to come back and fix it one day because it would not work – and here we are. I accept that the Government are doing that. I accept that they have recognised that the original deal done on that Amendment has not worked.

What I would say is that it is all very well and good to have laws, but you have got to actually make sure they work. If they are not working, you have got to make sure that they work. You have got to work out how you can make them work. I think there is open incitement being committed on our streets. There is open antisemitism, there is open discrimination. These laws are well meaning and this Amendment and acknowledgement are well meaning, but we need to do more. We need to make sure that where these laws exist, if they do not work, we work out how we can fix them. I accept that on this, the Government has done so. We will not frustrate that in any way. We support the position the Government has taken. More broadly, we have no concerns with the Bill, so the Coalition will not be opposing the Bill today.